November 6, 2011

He had better command of both the issues and the facts, offered plenty of corroborative studies and resources, and managed to make all of it accessible to the average voter. Cain did well at times, but twice had to ask Newt to handle questions first, which isn’t exactly a confidence builder. Cain seemed confused about the difference between defined-benefit and premium-support approaches on Medicare, getting confused between pension plans and health care later on the same point. While Cain discussed philosophical approaches to these issues confidently, Gingrich had actual data at the ready, and the difference was telling.

No matter his personal baggage, I'm beginning to like Newt more all the time. I watched him in this debate and thought "this is who this nation needs as a national leader. Not some pantywaist guy who really doesn't want the job, escapes in the afternoon to ESPN, turns the podium over to Bill Clinton, and embarrasses the USA every time he travels abroad." Yeah, Newt has personal baggage. Most heads of state do. Most past heads of state of the USA have, but the press covers for them. Will we let the Fourth Estate's hatred for all things Republican poison us to the leadership qualities Newt demonstrates so ably?

Why is that a surprise? Gingrich is the epitome of intellect when it comes to government and policies. Cain may be good at something but he does not strike me as an intellectual who relishes acquiring knowledge and then talking about it and connect the dots further with it to make your argument. It appears that Cain never imagined his campaign to get this far and now that it has he has to rise to the occasion or quit.

Cain would probably have the longer coattails and he absolutely terrifies establishment America so I guess there's gonna be a very well orchestrated "groundswell" for Newt. Which has nothing to do with which man would make the better president. Just the establishment MUST keep blacks on the plantation.

We may have heard the future revealed when Cain asked Gingrich "As vice president what would you like as a first assignment?" Gingrich is usually the smartest person in the room but is probably unelectable to the presidency for reasons that Paddy O gave. I rejected him at first but now I think more positively of him. I like his idea to, if nominated, to follow Obama around rebutting him.

Pasta, yeah I've heard that too and so it's not an issue that bothers me, though it is an issue, right or wrong, that Gingrich has to defend.

It's definitely more of a cumulative thing. He's someone who is going to give the best answer to a question, someone who is the smartest guy in most any room, someone with a lot of legislative experience, but also someone who will torpedo that in some moment of arrogance or pride or whatever.

You may want to read this. His second wife gave a long interview and parts of it are in this article I think. She has some damning things to say not as a disgruntled, vengeful ex-wife but things that may be red flags. In politics today, Newt is probably the one person who comes close to Clintons'(both) intellect and is worth listening to. He will eat Obama with or without his totus for lunch in debates and I will give anything to watch that. But he is also unreliable and damaged that would make him not ideal.

I like both Cain and Perry but I no longer consider them to be serious contenders. Like others have mentioned, I am more confident in Newk's electability after reading the statement his daughter put out last week. I am cautiously optimistic that Newt will continue to pick up support as the Cain and Perry supporters peel off. That is the most exciting development in this primary to me.

You can't get into a debate like that and defer to your opponent on a couple of key policy issues.

Herman lost a lot last night and Newt, with the post by the Anchoress, as well as being cleared by the IRS of the smear job David Obey and the House Demos threw at him, does start to look a lot more viable.

I think Perry is still in it. It's early and he has the $$$ backing him. That cash is going to be critical in a long nomination process.

Cain's not in it seriously until he can attract the big money. He might attract that money.

Gingrich would have problems in the general because of the multiple adulteries. He might be able to get past it, but he's not with his original wife, and a certain portion of the electorate won't overlook his three marriages.

The oppo research would be really bad. Too many opportunities of juicy stories coming from multiple alienated in-laws. (And I don't know if he has kids or his relationship with the kids, but that could also be a problem.) And the sex with the much younger and blonder aide thing during the Clinton impeachment is going to be juicy in the general election.

Middle-class, mostly non-political, church-attending married women will have a hard time voting for him.

I am considering Newt more lately too. His wife did not have cancer; she had a benign tumor. And he probably was less amorous than Bill Clinton. Bill had affairs, Newt had marriages!

He is the only one who has the guts to take on Obama. He will articulate a fiscal conservative message and LEAD. Mitt is going to do a McCain, I think, and be afraid to attack his politics, and he will lose.

Although this thread in not concerning Romney, I want to say that I am warming to him as well since he is obviously being influenced by Paul Ryan. I am hopeful this primary comes down to Romney and Gingrich. I would be happy with that. I think either of those candidates can handle His Imperial Majesty.

It's not bad enough to think the republicans, at their convention, will pick Gingrich. Because there's nothing like old times to remind a large part of the American electorate that they were pretty well satisfied with Bill Clinton.

But 2012?

I keep thinking the convention the republicans hold will be one of those events that you can't call ahead of time.

As the states hold their primaries, ahead. Which means that "some" ... or a "few" delegates go into "pockets." It's very possible we will see more candidates, ahead, collecting "pocket money." NO ONE WILL HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO SAIL OVER THE TOP!

Maybe, that's why Karl Rove is suddenly so quiet?

Sarah Palin hasn't entered "IN," either. But she has her fans. And, she could probably rouse them at a moment's notice.

Imagine a convention that has to keep on voting ... until ONE contedah wins the nomination.

TRUE, no one probably remembers Abraham Lincoln's run in 1860. But he entered the "wigwam" in Chicago, in 3rd or 4th place. With "favorite sons" in the lead.

But, by definition, "favorite sons" don't carry national appeal.

The first night? I think it was Stanton, who won by voice vote. But the printers hadn't finished printing the ballots. Which would not arrive until the next day.

So Lincoln's supporters went to work on each and every favorite son's team. Pointing out that they wouldn't win. While Lincoln, by then, had a national reputation. Because of the Lincoln Douglass debates. And, the dems were gonna pick Douglas.

That lesson may ring true, again. The conservatives seem to be in the business of "picking their favorite." While the real issues that interest most Americans are not being tackled by the republican party at all.

It's a "Showcase of Debates."

Which puts emphasis on the scale towards "religion," if you're viewing this from an opposing camp. Or "intellectualism," which is sure to go down the drain. Since "smart" doesn't really appeal.

Dunno why this is so.

But it's pretty much a given, now, that none of the 8 stands a chance.

And, every time I hear "Romney" ... I think McCain. So, that if it's gonna be Romney, then Obama wins in a walk.

Sure. Lots of people don't think Obama is competent. But there will be plenty of ticket splitting ... which could mean the senate also falls into the hands of the republicans.

Gingrich is a policy wonk, everyone knows this. Cain is the experienced novice. Not in command of all the facts, but is at least willing to admit that he is willing to learn them. If the media could escort Erkle, the great unknower into the WH with his promise of hope (fail) and change (a bigger fail), then the American public may entrust themselves to having a political neophyte like Cain in the WH. Every single republican candidate out there right now is infinitely better than what we have in the WH now.

Someone steeped in government culture knows what the buzz words mean, inside and out. Not knowing the specific terms being used doesn't mean one can't have quality of thought about the situations they represent.

How soon we forget Harold Stassen and Adlai Stevenson. Men who thought they deserved to win because they were in for the long haul and were smart.

It will be Romney vs. Obama, and Obama will win 54:46. Because what will Romney do different than Obama? Nothing, really, except maybe bring the Lawrence Welk Show back into the White House instead of Jay-Z.

A Presidential debate is not something you actually win. The aim is not to appear smarter than your opponent but to appear more likeable and trustworthy. There are many things to be said in favor of Gingrich's intellect and instincts, but he has no magnetism. How does it happen Clinton survives his scandals, and Gingrich appears a sleaze?.....You can blame the MSM for some of it, but there's more to it than that. Spitzer crashed and burned, but Schwartzenegger winked and moved on. I think Cain will be able to absorb his scandal much better than Gingrich simply because he has more charm. Also he looks like the kind of guy that pursues women in order to get laid rather than to validate his existence......I'm not a fan of either man. Cain's ideas are gimmicky and, to me anyway, he comes across more as a pitchman than as a serious thinker, but there can be no doubt that between Cain and Gingrich, he is the more likeable of the two.....I would caution all Republicans, however, to be wary of his charm. Schwartenegger ran on the basis of his being an outsider with no political experience. People filled in the blanks and thought they were going to get another Reagan. As it turns out, Arnie had more in common with Teddy than Ronnie. There's much to like in Cain, but there are many grounds for wariness as well

What people say in debates is only important to the extent that it predicts what they will do in office.

How to go from one to the other isn't at all obvious. Presidential candidates constantly say, "I will do this" and "I will do that" as if Congress and the courts and the bureaucracy and the rest of the world don't exist.

I am not enthusiastic about Cain but, as a resident of Massachusetts, I imagine Romney appointing respectable, experienced people to be Cabinet secretaries and under-secretaries and commissioners. The people under them (the "permanent government") tell them how difficult it would be to spend less or to regulate less and Romney's appointees then pass that message up the line--and very little changes.

How soon we forget Harold Stassen and Adlai Stevenson. Men who thought they deserved to win because they were in for the long haul and were smart.

It will be Romney vs. Obama, and Obama will win 54:46. Because what will Romney do different than Obama? Nothing, really, except maybe bring the Lawrence Welk Show back into the White House instead of Jay-Z.

America, the 50s are calling. They want Romney back.

GodZero only won with those numbers because of the Conservatives who stayed home - which they won't this time - and the independents - and he's lost them, as he's losing women and Hispanics.

Anyone who thinks things can stay the way they are today (something of a pipe dream in itself) and Zero will still be re-elected is kidding themselves.

My guess is that Obama finds the "Debating Shows" to be boring for most Americans.

It's sort'a like the "occupy Wall Street" crowd is to lame brained students, with enough credential debt, to stay under water for a lifetime.

You need these debates, I guess. But nobody's watching them.

What leaks through for the OWS "crowd" are the comedy routines now running.

Even here the GOP isn't making a dent. What funny stuff could you report about these debates?

As to "remembering" Harold Stassen, he was the Ralph Nader of "attempts" at running for president.

And, the surprising fact about Adlai Stevenson is that his father was the veep candidate to a democrap who lost.

Then? Following in his dad's footsteps, Adlai Stevenson also lost.

But at least Stevenson had a sense of humor! When a woman approached him to shake his hand, she was so enthused she said "every bright person in America will vote for you." And, Stevenson replied: "Then, alas, I lose." And, he did. Twice.

The republicans called him an "egg head."

I still think there's NO SURE THANG ... walking into the GOP convention in 2012.

You think you're watching the "show" with these debates?

WAIT!

Most of the conventioneers will sit out front. The real fighting, however, will occur backstage.

Will Gingrich have enough cards to manuever in this environment? Or will he be thrown to the dogs?

Romney? Romney = McCain.

But there are jokers in this deck! Trump and Sarah Palin may even opt to run circles around everyone. And, go into the race as Independents.

How long did it take Ross Perot to get on the 1992 ballot? (Just a couple of months.) And, back then the "photo opportunities" went to the people who were hauling signed petitions around. In all 50 states! Once Perot appeared on Larry King Live ... and Larry asked him if he'd do this ... It was just a matter of months!

Too bad Ross Perot turned out to be such a lunatic.

These days? It takes longer to prove your candidate doesn't have the mustard.

Newt was by far better at last night's venue. However, one thing about Cain that I did like is that he can present policy solutions very simply. I'm not saying they are great solutions, but he makes it very digestible.

I loved listening to Newt last night, but I became aware that he offers complicated solutions to problems. These complex solutions are much more likely to get watered down, misapplied, or downright fail because of all the levels of people that they need to go through. I don't think Newt would make a great CEO.

Newt is a conundrum. I think he would be dynamite, but his electability is an open question. Perhaps if he can proceed gently during the primaries, enough people will be willing to listen to him long enough to appreciate that some of the talents he has to offer might displace some of the reservations and concerns, real and imagined, about his personal life that have built up within his media image over the years.

It may never happen, but if he did get the nomination I would plunk down large $ for a pay per view title match debate with Gingrich and Obama. Gingrich would eviscerate Obama. Watch the entire 34:42 of video at the link above and see what you think.

I had given up on Gingrich some years ago. I had heard the story about his wife and the hospital and I decided I didn't like him. Now it turns out they had already agreed to a divorce and she was in for surgery and he brought the kids in to see their mom and then they talked about the terms of the divorce. Still no fun, but very different and not monstrous IMO.

Last summer, I watched his 2010 "MICHIGAN MUST CHANGE OR DIE" speech (it's on YouTube). He just lays it on the line that there's a road failure and a road to prosperity, and we must choose. So he got my attention again.

He is saying that we have an opportunity with technology to have a better life for everyone if we can be smart. The world that works, versus the world that doesn't, and government as it is doesn't work.

I've searched for his speeches to get a more comprehensive idea of what he has in mind. I've learned that, on YT, you've got to search for his speeches by name or date or you will endlessly wade through a swamp of anti-Gingrich videos, "featured" videos and other miscellanea.)

In late October, he was interviewed by Paul Gigot and Joel Klein at the College Board forum on "The Future of American Education." It was EXCELLENT. Not on YT but easily found online.

I've seen our schools utterly fail with bright but non-typical students. I'm really interested in innovation in education. The current model of schools is 19th-century. IMO Gingrich is a visionary on education.

At the Iowa Reagan dinner in early November -- link -- http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIvGyohjpOE -- Gingrich says if he's the nominee, he will challenge Obama to seven Lincoln-Douglas style debates of three hours each, no moderator and a time-keeper only; and that if Obama refuses, Gingrich will do as Lincoln did to Douglas, and follow him around and give responding speeches. I would LOVE to see this.

The Left has subverted most of our public institutions. Elections don't put a dent in this. If we want to change it, it's going to take a lot more than a presidential election. I've concluded that government of the people, by the people and for the people requires some exertion from the people.

Newt Gingrich understands and articulates the sound principles we need to return to, if we are going to get out of this fine-kettle-of-fish we are swimming in today.

However, he has one major piece of baggage ... the reversion of the Gingrich-led House to pork-barrel politics-as-usual in the late 1990's, after the good work they did in the aftermath of 1994.

That is what turned me into an independent ... and is why I still think that someone less connected to the professional/political complex, like Mr. Cain, is the better choice.

However, mun may be on to something ... There may be some value in the old hand, Gingrich, reprising the Darth Cheney role in a Cain Administration ... that is, as long as Mr. Cain remains feisty enough to resist the pull of the Dark Side of the Political Force, back to politics-as-usual.

Gingrich's brief record as a leader was mediocre at best. Cain has never held political office at all and running a business is not the same as running a polity. I seriously doubt either one would be unable to beat Obama. IMHO both these guys would be poor choices.

I like Newt. He's the smartest candidate, was formerly second in the line of succession, and has political experience unequalled by any of the other candidates.

Is he flawed? Yes, of course he is. Aren't we all? He is divorced, like many Americans, and that will be less of a negative than his liberal detractors hope. Reagen, after all, was also divorced and was elected twice.

Gingrich has sought redemption and forgiveness, privately, out of the public eye, through his conversion to Catholicism. Give him that, and expect that the won't tarnish the office in the manner of JFK or WJC.

I'd rather have an ideologically conservative Gingrich as President than a vacillating RINO like Romney, or a mean liar like Perry.

I like Gingrich, but the media will take vast delight in destroying him -- even if they have to use lies to do it. Most of America "knows" that Newt cheated on his dying wife and served her divorce papers as she was recovering from the anesthesia from cancer surgery ... just as most of America still "knows" that George H.W. Bush had never seen a supermarket barcode scanner before 1992.

"It appears that Cain never imagined his campaign to get this far and now that it has he has to rise to the occasion or quit."

Cain was a fast food executive, then the decline of Godfather's sales led to his replacement and 2nd career as a conservative motivational speaker. To do his 2nd gig, Cain only had to learn the red meat conservative issues and deliver on them as a motivating, likable Philosopher King. Unfortunately, Cain never bothered to learn many many things you need to be a good governor or President.

So Cain delivers a fine line of bullshit in motivational preacher cadence to the yahoos and Fundies..but can't mask the holes in his qualifications you could drive a truck through.

Newt has a different act. He is a bright guy, though not as bright as a Clinton or Romney....he exploits his "Perfessor" persona - much like Obama does.He lectures with heavy portent, in a tone and pausing intensity that like Obama, convinces the rubes that what he is saying is profound - and is The Most Important Thing They Have Ever Heard. That like Obama, he is indeed The Smartest Man in The Room.

Except he isn't.

But he thinks he is, and that is why Newt's history is full of things he tried to get away with because he figured he was so smart he could. But got nailed with. Even after he left politics 14 years ago (he lasted 4 years as Speaker, quitting the House after he lost his Republican majority). To make money as a pundit, book seller, and TV talking head.

Neither guy is Presidential material.

I wouldn't go with either as VP, for that matter. Cain is old at 65, with serious past health issues and I doubt he could take a 3AM phone call without people telling him what he had to say.Newt would be 70. He could take the 3AM phone call. And as VP, someone would watch the guy to ensure his spinning moral compass didn't burn Newt and the country one more time. But if he did become President, who would watch him?

I find it dismaying that Newt is even drawing the meager support that he does from the Republican rank and file. Why?

Is it because he was stupid enough to appear schmoozing with Pelosi about a "compromise" with green extremists and "climate change"? (He's sorry now - just stfu)

Is it because he was sleezy enough to lobby against reform for Freddie Mac, for $300,000 in 2006, instead of adding his voice to those who saw the collapse coming?

Is it because he supports ethanol subsidies, and oh.. by the way ..received $300,000 from an ethanol lobby group in 2009?

He's a sleazy beltway insider and influence peddler. Of course he knows the bureaucratic buzzwords that make the wonks all tingly - it's his job and his reason for living. Hell - he even married a lobbyist.

While the deathbed confrontation is obviously a media hackjob, there remains no doubt that Gingrich is a pussyhound, which indicates a lack of discipline and personal ethics.

Cain is moving on up in the polls because of his authentic personality and sense of humor.

The 40 years of Cain's career was in leadership roles until he trained himself how to do it right.

He is a superb leader.

Remember the Generals with high credentials spitting mad at George Patton, the unconventional General doing things his way, and who mainly connected with his men until he could lead them through the Wehrmacht's Panzers without a moment's doubt that their leader did not know what needed to be done or would support them while they did it for him.

Patton studied leadership 35 years to perfect his style.

After the war is won there will be plenty of time to rate Cain's flaws and bad decisions like they did to Patton, but we need a leader to win this 2012 war.

And Patton was right that a good plan acted upon now is better than awaiting a perfect plan that delays you until until your enemy is ready for it.

9-9-9 anyone? The Cain Train is putting on some more coal and rolling faster and faster.